Prohibition and totalitarian collectivism

“If you allow for a purely capitalistic society, without any type of regulation at all, you will get one monopoly that will eat all of the smaller fish and own everything, and then you’ll have zero capitalism, zero competition – it would just be one giant company.” – Serj Tankian

Depending on the longevity of one’s experience, the history of government’s inhumanity to man grows deeper. A person, who has lived through four score and seven years ago, may very well be similar to an individual hearing the Gettysburg Address at the time when Abraham Lincoln originally spoke those words. Eight-seven years is a long time, witnessing the Great Depression, World War II and every succeeding administration, which transformed the country from a Republic, into an Empire. Reflecting on the dramatic departure that took off under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the course of the federal government has intensified in size and escalated in scope of intrusion.

Most people hardly give a second thought to this transition. Younger generations have lived their entire lives under the social welfare state. Understanding, much less experiencing, individual freedom is foreign to their way of life. Public rebellion and anti-social conduct has been a phrase of passage for many eras. However, most folks eventually grow up to the extent that they comprehend that life is not a beach and there is a high price paid to become a responsible American.

The sorry fact is that there are a diminishing number of conscientious and dependable neighbors, who act as solid citizens. Blaming the ills of society on elected officials alone ignores the systematic living organism that grows, when the political culture adopts authoritarian principles as the normal method of administration.

Labels put aside, all subjects of a national regime live under laws that establish prohibitions as a matter of course. When using the term Prohibition, the normal association is that of outlawing alcohol. Even cohorts of Carrie Nation have to admit that banning booze for moral reasons does not match the motive for repeal, because of the loss in tax revenue. Yet, Eliot Ness agents developed an untouchable culture of regulation, when lifting the ban became politically expedient.

What is a law? A simple definition is “The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.” For a more scholarly and legalize viewpoint, Black’s Law Dictionary is often the standard. However, the popular notion that a law is enforceable by some entity called “government” is an assumption based upon intimation and compliance.

By this interpretation, free will can be dangerous to your well being and safety, since some artificial body of professed authority deems that transgressions risk punishment. Therefore, it sounds like laws are prohibitive by nature. Notwithstanding, can a law be a positive enactment, for surely government authorities want to conquer the high moral ground, even when it has a foundation of quick sand.

The Ten Commandments identify only “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy and Honour thy father and thy mother” as positive didactics, while the other eight are “Thou Shalt Not” directives. It certainly seems to be an incontrovertible prerequisite that prohibition on behavior and demeanor occupies the realm of moral conduct. Conversely, the supposition that government operates on a moral plane is a deadly assumption, even under the best of circumstances.

Prohibition features become mandates that make up the meaning in most laws. For a definitive reason explaining, why laws seldom make any social circumstance or condition any better, just look to the coercive nature of legal demands. Criticism of proscriptive attitudes likes to blame intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded and parochial outlooks. Quite to the contrary, the progressive, socialist, collectivist and government advocates are the persona of authoritarians.

A reactionary is frequently demeaned as “a person or a set of views opposing political or social liberalization or reform.” Tear off the layers of deceit in such allegations of disparity and compare the actual beliefs and values of an ultraconservative.

The unbroken chain of autocratic government during this eighty-seven year time era is the unequivocal proof that liberalization or reform has never existed. Liberalization needs a definition as a protector of individual liberty, not an endorsement of expanding government regulations. Reform means changing a system that is going in the wrong direction. Indubitably, the pattern for all these decades is bigger government and more policies that are progressive in lip service.

A true populist crosses over the entire political spectrum. Laws based upon prohibiting personal liberty, deserve and often require careful scrutiny before armchair advocates start chanting “PC” doctrine. Those who purport to be liberals seldom will defend the right of the individual to dissent from cultist dogma or question the canons of social progressivism.

The regulatory environment, habitually touted as the salvation for the planet, is nothing more than a deviation from rational thought of a genuine free market based society. It is one thing to have elected officials pass a law, since (at least in theory) one can vote them out of office or hold them answerable in the public arena. However, the vast entanglements of agency and administrative directives, arbitrarily written and enacted by technocrats and bureaucratic departments that virtually are immune to accountability, is the systemic issue.

Here within lies the dilemma. Every crack in the social order becomes fair game for an all-powerful central government to manage and control the circumstances. Most honest people intuitively know that the federal government creates more problems than any minor benefit that it endows. Still pro federalist advocates continue to deceive their communities that improvements advance by sticking with the same old formula. History does not bear out that the national experience is making progress. An accurate assessment requires perspective and candor that is sorely lacking.

The manner that agency regulators operate to protect the crony elites is unjustifiable. The reactionary conservative champions liberty, not state-capitalism. Marginalize all the NeoCons and NeoLibs as establishment guardians. Gate keeping for political institutions of a dictatorial culture cannot be respectable.

It comes down to an elementary proposition. Any law for it to be valid must be a moral imperative beneficial to citizens. Laws and regulations that protect monopolistic corporatism do not incorporate moral standing. People enjoy constitutional common law rights and in this day of national border eradication, only competent and loyal legal citizens have the authority to speak as an American.

Just look how hollow the words are of that traitor to the founding cause, Abraham Lincoln.

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Well, that solemn pledge died under the hands of this despot. Is it reactionary to condemn treason when it betrays the essence of the American Revolution? Of course, in the Orwellian supra state that criminalizes opposition to the central government, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”, means you are a targeted terrorist.

Ask a pretend liberal, Is this the kind of progress you want and believe in for yourself and the rest of society? Or, maybe you should become a true champion of individual liberty? All those laws and regulations that strip away the quality of life from citizens is the tangible legacy of the last century.

When does a prohibitive law become a police state excuse to use coercive force? Answer, when agency regulations say so in their playbook manual. The years of incrementalism are over. The bipartisan administrations during your lifetime have eroded the “pursuit of happiness” to such an extent that it has become a mere memory of what once was.

Thank the protected class that uses government favoritism to dismantle the market place, while destroying the middle class. The fraud racket that continues to pass abusive laws to social engineered behavior, while aggrandizing and exempting the political class and their benefactors, is not improving life in this country.

People could live free under limited government. Today, all things possible (the few that are left) need permission. Nothing changed in the inherent autonomy of the sovereign individual, but the totalitarian collectivism of the government has exceeded its own expectations.

Proper and dramatic regulation reduction for the populace is essential to a radical reactionary, while stripping away all personhood designation for corporations in any of their delusory incarnations, is necessary.

Joseph de Maistre said, “Every country has the government it deserves” and so should the United States. Well, you got it in spades and the bureaucrats will remind you at every level. Compliance means submission in this collapsing society. If sunset laws repealed the bogus authority of imperial agencies, the system might see a small crack to the light of day.

Such a prospect is as likely for the prodigy of your children having a better life than you are having. America has swollen into a behemoth of regimentation. The majority of laws no long carries the seal of legitimacy. Worse yet are the nameless ignominious regulators.

“Most honest people intuitively know that the federal government creates
more problems than any minor benefit that it endows. Still pro
federalist advocates continue to deceive their communities that
improvements advance by sticking with the same old formula.”

‘This time it will be different.’ Faith in the established government religion is hard to shake.

I have never met a conservative who was not a fan of government action.

“People could live free under limited government.”

Q.E.D.

The problem is, limited government never stays that way. If you want liberty, the only way is with government that one personally, explicitly agrees to: Panarchy. Whenever agreement is dispensed with, the tyranny begins and never stops until the crash.